If I asked everybody here what the definitions of "left" and "right" were, I'd probably not get the same answer twice. The broadest definition is that the left supports change and the right does not. However, the terms have no actual meaning when defined like this. For example, someone can be a hard-core Marxist and be a conservative if they lived in Stalinist Russia. Someone can be liberal in America is they support instituting a monarchy or a socialist republic. How many times have you heard someone (probably a liberal) say that the terms have no meaning, and that the only thing that matters is the person's vision for the future?

Personally, I think we should scrap the terms all together and arrange people on a spectrum like this.

<--Socialism---Semi-Socialism---Favors a Mixed-Economy---Favors a Capitalist Economy, with safety net---Favors pure Capitalism, with some regulation-- Favors unregulated capitalism, with government to protect individuals---Anarchists, no government, strong over weak--->

It's a little hard to interpret, but basically, those to the left favor a bigger government in order to help people less-well off, while those to the right favor less government, where people help themselves.

Hopefully, everybody can find a place on this and agree that it is a generally fair and accurate system that is explicit in its meaning. It would be much better than the old, I think.

__________________
The White Fox Uncertainty Principle states that:
You can never know the position of a liberal and the logic behind it at the same time,
because the closer you get to finding one, the more unknown the other one becomes.

I offer you proof that my uncertainty principle stands true: